Despite the obvious link between promiscuous sex and abortion, 'Sex
education' in our schools, both public and private, and in our churches is, again,
an issue apart.4 (For footnote,
click here.)

And, let us summarily dismiss issues of cloning or other manipulations of ova
that artificially simulate fertilization and thus stimulate the cell's multiplicative process.
I have no doubt that in time medicine will succeed in nurturing cell divisions and
their differentiations to produce, outside the female body, what appears to be a new,
unique human being. But that likely lies in the far distant future. While cloning is
becoming a matter of public discussion, that is the antithesis of abortion.
(Parenthetically, I hate to see medical research driven from our country; cloning will be
undertaken because there is demand and making it illegal here merely requires people go
elsewhere to develop their skills.)

Let me dispel early-on any questions about my own inclinations. I want to
present a number of points as objectively as possible. I am hopeful readers, knowing the
author's stance, can then use these discussions one by one to help them arrive at views
that are internally consistent and compatible with their own background and experiences.
My view is two-fold:First, I would not have wanted my wife to carry to term a youngster she resented,
regardless of its normalcy. That is not to say she should have sought to avoid pregnancy
or that she should not have carried a child unless she had, before having sex, weighed the
consequences and made a willful decision she wanted to become pregnant: There is a vast
middle ground between aggressively seeking a pregnancy and adamantly opposing the
disciplines necessary to nurturing the unborn and the born.
And, second, we should, as a matter of public policy, apply economic sanity to
questions of preservation of a human life. That is, we should not automatically in all
cases bring to bear the ultimate in medical capabilities; it is economically ruinous and
morally questionable to do so.But these are personal views; I will not pursue either.

THE ABORTION DEBATE

We may run afoul of differences between the moral and the legal. Whatever personal moral
stance we reach, there may be practicalities that limit our ability to impose, or even reach
consensus on, what ought to be. That we may run against such a barrier ought not
deter us from the intellectual exercise. That said, let us proceed.

There are a number of collateral issues. But let me first remind you that prohibition
of abortion should not be, cannot be, absolute. It may seem pedantic,
but an absolute denial of abortion is the mentally lazy route. It is far easier to say "no
abortions under any circumstance" than it is to wrestle with issues and arrive at a reasoned
attitude. Our species is allegedly endowed with intelligence that makes it possible to
consider cause and effect in both the immediate circumstance and their long range
consequence.

In abortion discussions "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are inappropriate terms. The
antithesis of "Pro-Life" is obviously "Anti-Life" and no one can conceivably argue for
that. Again, the antithesis of "Pro-Choice" is "Anti-Choice," which is the philosophy of
fatalism, or the concept we are merely actors playing out a script that has been
pre-determined for us. We should be honest and boldly use the correct terms Pro-Abortion
and Anti-Abortion, rather than attempting to erect an emotional smoke screen through the
choice of terminology.

Some say 'abortion is murder.' That's a snappy punch line, but it is overly simplistic.
If I destroy a living thing that does not have the mental capacity to recognize itself
(say, a squirrel or a cabbage), what have I destroyed? Can it be murder if the victim is
not recognized as a human person? And how must we define 'person?' In this context,
how best can we describe the ovum, the zygote, the blastocyst, the embryo, the fetus, the
infant? A proto-person? An incipient mortal? Possessor of a soul? (Does a cabbage or
a squirrel have a soul?)

We commonly accept the idea that the fetus can be sacrificed if the mother's life is
medically threatened by the pregnancy. (Should her life be ended by the pregnancy, the
odds are that the fetus will not then survive anyway. She can try again; loss of the fetus
is part of the balance of choices.) And we generally accept that a pregnancy should be
terminated in cases of incest -- a father impregnating his daughter, or a son his mother,
or a brother his sister. In both cases, we find it wise to relax the prohibition.

While an abortion renders a decision about the value of the life that is lost, it is
also true that the decision whether or not to abort is based on a comparison of values
of the known (the carrier) and the unknown (the fetus).

Some debate the wisdom of abortion in cases of criminal rape, but let me present a scenario
that haunts me: Visualize an attractive young woman -- bright, talented, with an enviable
future -- who chances to be seen by a ne'er-do-well, who stalks her and takes her unaware,
rapes her at, for her, the wrong time of month. As a result she is pregnant. She had no
choice but had forced upon her, against her will, possibly violently, a pregnancy by a man
to her unknown and best described as scum-of-the-earth. Does anyone feel that she should
commit her life to nurturing the child thus imposed upon her when, by the time that child
reaches majority, she will herself be near middle-age and will have largely passed the
possibility of husband and family? (Some have pointed out the possibility of adoption of
the youngster thus spawned; granted; it is still true that she would of necessity commit
most of a year to nurturing that hateful presence.) I have difficulty believing there is
anyone so callous, so insensitive, so blinded by the rhetoric of "pro-life," that he would
insist this innocent young woman should carry to term a youngster conceived under these
circumstances when her own life will be so wretchedly turned around as a result. Insist
that a woman carry for the eight months from discovery to delivery a hateful presence that
has been cruelly imposed on her? Our sense of humanity cries out against an absolute
prohibition of abortion. It isn't a question of whether but, rather, a question of
circumstance. Denial of abortion cannot be absolute because of the inhumanity denial may
impose on an innocent victim.5 For footnote,
click here

"Date rape" is a much more delicate matter because it is on the fringe of
irresponsible sexual behavior. Sexual intercourse should always be a matter of mutual
consent, but partaking with the attitude, "Well, if there is a pregnancy there can be an
abortion," is utterly irresponsible on the part of both participants. "Sex for
hire" is not rape but is a commercial activity and the risk of pregnancy, as well as
exposure to sexually transmitted disease, is an ordinary part of the transaction; I choose
not to wade into the thickets of law or of the implications of a sense of responsibility
on the part of either supplier or client.

"Life begins at conception" is a poorly defined idea. It takes life to create
life. The ovum is the product of life; should all ova be protected and nurtured? Many
fertilized ova pass on out of her body, and many embryos are spontaneously ejected due to
a deficiency her body recognizes. Doubtless medical research can produce chemicals that
reduce the incidence of both, but ought we seek such chemicals since they would introduce
more bodily weaknesses into our species.

Our religions teach us that each individual has an immortal soul that departs the body upon
death and continues its life on some other plane. But it is uncertain when that soul takes
up residence in the body. Perhaps at birth, maybe later. Perhaps at conception. Perhaps
when the proto-brain reaches a certain stage in development of the fetus. Perhaps a soul
hovers while a man and woman engage in sex even if a vehicle for that soul will not result.
The human soul apparently has no mass and so its arrival and its departure cannot be
measured on a scale; I choose not to offer speculations in the religious argument of when
the soul joins an incipient person. Suffice it to say I do not consider a soulless entity
to be a human being. And we must tread carefully on things that damage the mortal house
of the soul.

Nature, left to its own devices, will limit the range of weaknesses of body and mind that
it will allow to exist. If we examine our current medical practice, we recognize that one
result is to enable individuals of a lesser survival potential to survive long enough to
propagate. Thus whatever flaws exist in their genes become mixed in our general gene
pool. And with increased medical sophistication, still weaker individuals will survive; I
have difficulty seeing how, over the generations, degradation of our species can be
avoided. But that discussion belongs in a different forum. Cruel as it may seem to utter
such a thought, there is the chance we err in our sense of humanity when we apply our
medical knowledge to make it possible for certain selected weaknesses to survive. I won't
-- and can't -- undertake to catalog weaknesses at either end of our life span -- I'm not
knowledgeable enough -- but it presents many moral and ethical dilemmas and is well
outside the limits of discussion here.

When the abortion issue first surfaced as an item for public discussion, I had great
difficulty arriving at a point of view. Although it may skirt many issues, I finally
rationalized that it is not the man's body that is host to the unborn and therefore it is
not fundamentally a man's issue. Since then, two concepts have taken form in my mind
and they have had significant impact on the evolution of my thinking. Let me call them
'quality of life' and 'object of affection;' I will later attempt to clarify
my view of both. To me they are central to the humaneness of many life-and-death
decisions; and I am hopeful a sense of humanity can always be near the center of focus.
(As an example, I feel the prospective quality of life is a vital consideration in any
decision of degree of medical intervention to preserve a -- any -- life.) You may feel
either or both are irrelevant.

Is "abortion" part of a larger "culture of life?"2 (For
Footnote, click here.

Stewardship

But we are stewards. This is a certainty it is impossible to
avoid. Stewards. Responsible. Perhaps this is the line of demarcation between the human
and the non-human -- in the mature, a sense of responsibility, an awareness of cause and
effect and the insistent demands that awareness creates for responsible behavior. We are
human and therefore we are stewards. Stewards of what we inherited as a result of the
stewardship of our grandparents and parents. Stewards of the world we bequeath our
children and grandchildren -- and their grandchildren. What sort of world will that be?
What kinds of people will populate it? What values will they practice? What is our proper
role as our stewardship plays out? Can our practice of our stewardship be devoid of the
thinking process?

And we are what our genes decree.

In those choices between degradation of our species and improvement of our species, I
favor improvement. 'Playing God;' "stewardship;" these ideas are not in opposition; we
are agents of whatever gods there be. Unless our possession of the power of reason was
an evolutionary accident, we should be expected to practice reason. Including any and
all decisions, even those regarding the future genetic characteristics of our species.
Does this affect attitudes toward abortion? It ought to.

Eugenics has gotten a bad name for reasons that escape me. Partly, I suppose,
because Adolph Hitler espoused the idea in his book Mein Kampf and then botched
it in application; because he was evil many people feel that all his ideas are also evil. But
reason tells us 'truth is where you find it;' whatever ideas Hitler had that were good
should be recognized on their own merit and not evaluated in the same light as their
author. You might view eugenics as history, the gradual change toward larger bodies,
toward higher intelligence. When you select a sex partner you are, because of selectivity,
practicing eugenics, since any resulting offspring will possess a combination of traits
representing the both of you. Is or should the personal practice of eugenics be devoid of
the thought process?

Our abhorrence of incest is based on eugenics, the fact that a life originating from
parents whose genes are too similar gets a double dose of genetic faults. 'Inbreeding'
we call it. It seems odd that in this one instance of incest we accept the teachings of
eugenics but in others reject it as tampering with life after the fashion of God.

This will infuriate some, possibly because of the recognition of where we place, but no
serious observer of life can deny these facts: One of the most damning consequences of
war is the reduction in genetic stocks that produce the personal qualities for which we
have the highest regard. Any nation engaged in war that does not send into combat its
most capable is doomed to defeat: Simple fact of warfare. It is the genetic stocks that
are not destroyed in war that produce the ensuing generations, so one effect of war is a
reduced concentration of individuals possessing those qualities for which we have the
highest regard. If you can imagine a conflict spanning two or three generations, it is
obvious that there will be a serious depletion of the more desirable genetic stocks; it is
not that our species will recover in a generation or two; these genetic stocks have
disappeared and among those remaining these personal qualities are of increased rarity.

I would argue, without presenting proof, that those qualities for which we have the
highest regard are also the qualities that lend to survival of the individual, to progress,
and in general to the enrichment of society. So as a society we suffer irreplaceable
loss as a consequence of any large scale process that selectively depletes our best
genetic stocks or selectively encourages proliferation of weaker or less fit genetic
stocks. I think the correspondence between medical intervention and the effect of war
is obvious.

Allow me to leap forward a large number of generations. Suppose through some genetic
accident conceptions become imbalanced, with, say, less than 1% males. Or that 90% or
more depend on some medication or surgical procedure for their continued viability.
Likely by then the arts of medicine will have progressed to the point that introduction
into the body of gene-altering substances can correct most specific flaws in individuals
possessing certain known inherited factors. Could it be possible to mandate, regulate or
deny medical or surgical interventions? Could we become involved in the selection of
personal qualities? Personal eugenics??

It is an ordinary expectation that healthy people will have an opportunity to try again.
If one pregnancy is lost because it seems unwise to proceed to term, it is not unreasonable
to expect a future pregnancy to have a better prospect for a satisfactory conclusion. I
have tremendous empathy toward parents who have been required by law to underwrite
astronomical costs in nurturing an abnormal or severely deficient child. And I weep for
the marriages that have been destroyed because of the emotional price such care involves.
It's unnecessary; we have the tools to assess early-on an expected abnormality. Perhaps
we should consider the 'carrying capacity' of the couple and compare the burden of care
for a deficient youngster with the (future) burdens of nurturing normal children. Does not
a sense of humanity suggest that the effect of an abortion decision on father, mother,
proto-child and marriage be part of a balanced judgment?

Perhaps I err in assessing quality of life or again in concluding whether a person is an
object of affection. Perhaps either or both are irrelevant. But to me either of these is
adequate reason to protect the life of a victim of illness or accident or aging, and, by
extension, of an unborn. If neither exists then perhaps we should rethink the humanity or
wisdom of reaching for medical miracles to support that life.

There are those among us who will aggressively seek advantage over their fellows, both for
themselves and for their offspring. Our generation has seen the use of chemicals to enhance
physical performance. And we have witnessed the beginnings of genetic alteration through
the selective introduction of DNA. You can safely bet all that you own, and all that you
will ever own, that, once intelligence can be improved with a shot or simple operation, the
procedure will overshadow all others in popularity. Eugenics?

I note, sadly, there are still those among us who would impose their religious beliefs
on others, no matter the cost to the others, so long as there are neither costs nor
unpleasant consequences to themselves. For instance, the man who would require that a
sexually active woman conduct herself at all times as though she were pregnant and
nurturing a fetus. His justification is that his religion tells him personhood begins at
conception and that no one person should violate another. In consequence, he diminishes
the value of the woman to less than that of the unknown since he would insist she must at
all times subordinate herself to that being that just might be present. Imposing his values
on others at no cost to himself!

I think it instructive to realize that, throughout history until recent times, abortion was a
common experience without moral overtones; whether that was due to inadequate
knowledge of physiology, to moral blindness, or to pragmatic acceptance of the
unavoidable I cannot guess. We have seen the effects of prohibiting abortions. It is an
industry because there is demand. Make that industry illegal and its practice will be
carried out by the untrained in unsanitary settings and lives will be unnecessarily ruined
or wasted. (Even with abortion freely available and no moral stigma attached, many young
girls are fearful of confronting parents with the fact of their sexual misbehavior and
resultant pregnancy.)

In the larger sense society is the sum-total of its individual members, and promiscuous
(irresponsible) sex is making its contribution of individuals. There is a consequence, in
the viability of society, of our willingness to bring the powers of mind to bear on the
practice of sex, alike in the mature and immature. There can be no doubt that there is a
link between sex and abortion, just as between genetics and abortion.

There are undoubtedly other concerns dealing with abortion. Such as teen pregnancy and
notification of guardians -- certainly important but, compared with the Yes-No of abortion,
a side issue. I have not intentionally deleted other issues to favor my own biases; I have
dealt with what is on my mental horizon; other issues simply have not entered my mental mix.

I make no apology for rejecting an absolute prohibition of abortion, as in favoring it to
preserve the life of the mother, or in cases of incest and criminal rape. (I disagree with
requiring it as a matter of law since there are those who find abortion for any cause
repugnant based on their religion.) I feel abortion should be a medical and/or parental
choice based on an expected degree of abnormality or deficiency and its likely effect on
'quality of life' and 'object of affection.' While a girl under the legal age for marriage
should be automatically and promptly aborted at public expense with no questions asked
1 (To view footnote, click here), a welfare client or entry level worker (married or not) should have abortion
available to her at public expense in order to avoid a lapse into dependency. And abortion
should not be undertaken for convenience nor flippantly. Other controversial conclusions,
whether or not ground work has been laid, are:

Contrary Arguments

There are medical risks in the procedure; there are economic consequences. There is no
question abortion is a messy business. There is an emotional aftermath of having an
abortion just as surely as there is an economic aftermath of not having an abortion. How
much better would it be if we could avoid situations where an abortion decision is
necessary!

Some point to the effect on growth or shrinkage of population; my response: No
question it has an effect, but that is too abstract a consideration to be part of the
immediate concerns within the family.

RIGHT AND WRONG REASONS FOR ABORTION

Where a pregnancy is hateful to the expectant mother, I am torn since there are others to
be considered; I would have bowed to my wife's feelings.

Where choices can be humanely made, we should cull from our gene pool a number of
flaws such as a proclivity for criminal behavior.

On balance, a sense of humanity, including quality of life and object of affection,
requires consideration of all parties affected by an abortion decision.

The transitions from gamete to zygote to blastocyst to embryo to fetus to infant to person --
from proto-human to human, from possibility to reality -- are gradual over many months.
At some point it becomes a person; at some point it acquires a soul. To me it is the person
in possession of a soul that is due the protections of the law.

"Abortion on demand" may be a necessary evil because denial will assuredly result in a
medically unsound industry. Abortion is certainly not an adequate substitute for
responsible sexual behavior. While it may be difficult to insist that one mistake must
redirect a person's life, it is a part of life itself that one event may drastically alter,
even end, a life. Let us make a balanced judgment when viewed in the context of the
possible impact of other choices we are forced to make.

It is worth noting that, although pressure toward ethical behavior likely would have
arisen in the absence of religion, societal attitudes toward murder, assault, rape,
burglary, theft, . . ., are ultimately based on religious values; even atheists have their
ethics. If your attitude toward abortion is rooted in religious conviction, please grant
to others the right to hold whatever religion they choose and therefore whatever teachings
grow from that religion.

Some acts are universally recognized as repugnant; beyond those it is morally
repugnant for one person to impose his beliefs on another, no matter the cost to
the other, so long as there are neither costs nor unpleasant consequences to himself.
Essentially living in a moral vacuum by imposing his values at no cost to himself!

Medicine is moving toward the ability to correct genetic flaws; the ability to alter
genetic make-up will naturally follow; it is a trend impossible to reverse. Those
who, as a personal decision, wish to improve the relative standing of themselves and
their offspring among their peers, will aggressively pursue genetic improvement. There
will be mistakes, but those who do it right will advance and the rest of society will eat
their smoke. This belongs in a discussion of abortion if you wish future generations of
our species to be improved or strengthened.

Mankind's range of choices is being widened; we can be victims of circumstance or
we can apply our intelligence in matters affecting the future. In life, as in the jungle
and athletics and war, it is the strong who will prevail and we can ill afford to foster
losers.

I question if evolution has reached its end point. If our species, as presently
constituted, is the ultimate product of evolution or of God's aspirations for us. With
no further changes. We need to apply what mind we have to separating the crucial from
the irrelevant in matters affecting the future. While we are creatures of emotion,
ultimately reason must prevail.

To sum it all up, considering where we are and where we're going:Abortion for the wrong reasons should be denied;

abortion for the right
reasons should be endorsed.

Our differences are rooted in enumerating the 'wrong reasons' and the 'right reasons.'Our debate ought to be centered on understanding and evaluating the right reasons and
the wrong reasons for abortion.

For those who wish to explore the subject in greater depth I have
sought links that can help them arrive at a balanced stance.pro-choice (not "pro-abortion" or "anti-life")http://www.balancedpolitics.org/abortion.htm undertakes a balanced presentation.http://www.dmoz.org/society/issues/abortion/pro-choice presents a list of web pages.http://www.plannedparenthood.org presents discussions in keeping with their basic theme.anti-abortion ("pro-life")www.dmoz.org/society/issues/abortion/pro-life presents a list of web sites.
I have sought but not discovered a search string that produces web sites offering rational
comment on the 'pro-life' position other than discussion of the emotional traumas abortion
creates, which is discussed by Wikipedia as Abortion and Mental Health.
The Catholic Information Network declined a reciprocal link with the comment, "We
appreciate your intentions but disagree with your conclusions."
A highly ranked site presenting a Bible-based view declined to respond to an offer of
reciprocal links.
Excepting recognized debilitating defects, there will always be that nagging question of
what sort of person it might have been. As the poet said, "Saddest words of tongue or pen
are the words 'It might have been'." But we move beyond 'what might have been' in
rejecting proffered friendships, in selecting prospective mates, in other choices we make.

As promised, you may access what I know of Terri Chiavo's history by
clicking here.

Under our Constitution, matters of sex and its consequences
are not properly the domain of our Federal government and its court system. It was
entirely inappropriate for our Supreme Court to become involved in a matter that ought to
remain of state and local concern. As a citizenry we need to craft laws and institutions
to retain the balance of power closer to home. I endorse our Federal government
formulating model legislation for consideration by state and local political bodies, but I
oppose using Federal power, either police or budget or the courts, to impose that model
legislation. I have proposed a constitutional amendment to restore the balance of power
as it relates to sex and its consequences, which may be viewed by
clicking here.

10-8-05: As time goes by I become more and more
firmly convinced that the public debate -- or, more correctly, harangue since
so many people's positions are frozen in stone -- is misdirected. Politics has
been described as "the art of the do-able." Public debate needs to be restricted to the
politics of a situation. Within the church we may debate such issues as "when life begins"
or "when a soul descends on the individual," but that eschews practicality. In the realm
of the do-able the question turns on discovery, when it is learned that there is need to
give attention.

2-7-06: What is the connection between abortion,
infanticide and population? Admittedly population is the cumulative result
of individual decisions over the years and world population is truly one of the most
explosive issues facing the international community. We know in principle that we
shouldn't allow the burden of unchecked population growth to leave our world so sterile
that life is simply not worth the adventure. Neither do we wish to see our genetic base so
weakened that individual survival requires repeated medical or surgical interventions. I
have heard of statistically significant reductions in birth rates brought about by television
programs that display the advantage of birth control, religious objections notwithstanding.
My wisdom is not adequate to present solutions; I am content to suggest that
individual decisions by educated people will prevail.

5-14-07 That "M" word: I have often wondered how
many unwanted teenage pregnancies would have been prevented had the stigma among boys
about masturbation been removed. Would it not be prudent for coaches to
comment to their charges that this form of release would be preferable to trapping and
violating a girl friend. You can't ignore it: Hormones do get stirred up.

3-29-09 There is no question that an ovum, once
fertilized, has the potential to become a person. We must be careful in evaluating the
comparative worth of that incipient person and its host. Apart from denying the woman
sovereignty over her own body, categorically denying abortion is demeaning to the woman
in that it insists the unknown is of greater importance than she. I speak only for myself,
but there is no way I could have told my wife, regardless of what differences we may have
had, that the fetus was of more value to me than she.

To offer an opinion or seek further comment, you may send an e-mail that will pass my
spam filter if you use as Subject -- I read your post about abortion and reason -- exactly
as you see it here. Click here for the
e-mail form.

A further essay, The Social Contract may be viewed by
clicking here. As of today (12-22-05) that essay does not
include comment on abortion, although (2-11-07) a discussion of the fertilization process
and development of the embryo may be viewed by
clicking here.

I have found statistics (11-25-09) on reasons for elective abortions (not rape-, incest-
or health-related):

immaturity of mother

32%

economic reasons

33%

avoid adjusting life arrangements

16%

single mother, poor relationship

12%

enough children already

6%

Whether these statistics are reliable, they do reflect reasons given for the procedure.